2000 PLP 225 (PLC)

(Gap 2 days) 60 days

2. Second appointment w.e.f. 6‑9‑1995 to 4‑11‑1995 (Removed from 4‑11‑1995) (Sd.) 21‑4‑1999. (Sd.) Rep. of respondent 21‑4‑1999.

3. In this case, the respondent was temporarily appointed as Traffic Cleaner for a period of two months (60 days) w.e.f. 6‑7‑1995, terminable after expiry of the said period on monthly basis (R/1). This period came to 'an end on 3‑9‑1995. Thereafter, with a gap of two days, he was again appointed as Traffic Cleaner for another period of two months on monthly basis w.e.f. 6‑9‑1995. It was stated in the said appointment order that his service will automatically stand terminated on the expiry of the above period. Thus, the said appointment came to an end on 4‑11‑1995. Admittedly, he was no more employed after 4‑11‑1995.

4. The representative of the respondent submits that the respondent continued to work upto 4‑11‑1995 when his service was terminated without issuing termination order iii writing and showing any reason for the same.

5. The written statement was filed on behalf of the applicant Corporation wherein several allegations, made by the respondent were denied. An affidavit‑in‑evidence by the respondent was filed and was cross-examined by the Advocate of the applicant Corporation. An affidavit‑in -evidence on behalf of the applicant Corporation was filed by one Turab Ali, District Manger, Dadu Depot. The said witness was cross‑examined by representative of the respondent.

6. The question, whether the respondent acquired the status of a permanent workman, will be determinable on the basis of the continuous period of service. It is manifest that there is gap of two days between the first and the second appointment. There is no continuity in the period of service. So, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be held that there is a continuity of service of 90 days without any break. The above said appointments were temporary in nature for two months with gap in between, as aforesaid. As such, the respondent did not acquire, in law, the status of a permanent workman.

7. Since it has been held, as above, that the respondent cannot be deemed to be a permanent workman, he was not entitled to a notice of termination, as provided under Standing Order 12(3) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.

8. The representative of the respondent lastly submits that the applicant having failed to file appeal against the impugned order, the revision application is not maintainable in law. The contention is misconceived. This Tribunal has got suo motu powers of exercising its revisional jurisdiction to examine any order decision passed by a Labour Court as to the legality, correctness or propriety of the said order/decision. This power of the Tribunal can be exercised even on an application of aggrieved party, if it makes out a case for such exercise, as held in Talah Muhammad and 12 others v. Fateh Muhammad and 2 others (1990 PLC 80).

9. For the aforesaid discussion the decision of the learned Labour Court, impugned in this revision is held to be illegal and stands set aside.

10. Before parting with the matter, it may be observed that in case there is a vacancy, the respondent worker may be considered favorably for re -employment by the Corporation, as he is an old worker.

11. The revision application is allowed accordingly H.B.T/260/K/Lab. (Trib.) Revision allowed.